You keep saying “objectively offensive”, as if offence is ever something that is objective.
10 Likes
You are entirely correct that offence is only ever subjective.
But this is exactly why any reasonable set of standards requires communication of one’s unease before you expect people not to do it!
As I mentioned, there is a certain level of behaviour that one should be able to reasonably expect might offend based on general societal expectations, but anything more personal than that (something which creeps you out but people might not generally be expected to realise would do so) needs communication before people can be expected to act in that.
Basically, it’s unreasonable and impractical to expect people not to act in a way that might offend anyone in any way, precisely because it’s an entirely subjective matter.
What is reasonable and practical is to expect people not to knowingly upset anyone, which covers things that by a general societal expectation would be deemed to be be potentially unwanted, or things that have previously been specifically flagged by an individual. It probably also reasonable and practical to ask that people try and think about what might upset others.
2 Likes
If someone asks me not to do something because it makes them uncomfortable, I don’t need to know why. All I need is to not be a dick.
It doesn’t really matter, at least in the short term, if you don’t understand why someone is finding a certain thing uncomfortable or offensive - simply put if you know that you are causing offence in some way, and continue to do it anyway, then you are an asshole.
5 Likes
I think you misread my post. I specifically said that no-one should ever have to explain why something is upsetting, but they should be expected to explain that it is upsetting, if it’s something that wouldn’t necessarily be commonly understood to be upsetting. (You shouldn’t need to explain that rape jokes are potentially upsetting. You probably need to tell people that you find squirrels upsetting. You shouldn’t need to explain what it is about squirrels that causes the issue, if you don’t want to.)
That’s in contrast to the current principle of the code of conduct, which expects that nothing, even the most unique of foibles, should ever need explaining but nonetheless expects people to avoid infringing them.
4 Likes
Or to put it another way, in case it helps:
Offence is subjective, but whose subjectivity are we using? As far as I can see there are a couple of obvious options.
We could use societal expectation (a communal subjective judgement)?
We could use personal subjectivities?
The problem with the former is that it leaves people upset where they have triggers that are not generally understood or differ from the norm. The problem with the latter is that is not actionable by others without informing them first!
I would like to think that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than just enforcing general societal subjectivities. These more personal concerns require communication to practically honour them. I’d also like to think that we don’t expect people to have to endlessly explain where it shouldn’t be necessary. We can expect to enforce generally accepted norms without requiring “prior warning”.
I simply think it would be more useful to distinguish between the two. Only using general societal expectations I don’t think goes far enough. Equally, assuming that personal subjective expectations can be respected without prior reference is illogical and impractical. I am aware that any policy can be sensible if policed/judiciously ignored with common sense, but I think it’s about more that that: someone wanting to self-check their behaviour can’t take much from a document that expects impractical mind-reading feats as a pre-requisite to acceptable behaviour!
1 Like
I disagree. There are plenty of offensive icons or statements that any reasonable person would find objective. Think racial slurs, etc. Sure, some backwards people may not be offended by them, but they’re almost universally considered offensive and off limits.
On the other hand, table talk with a female Netrunner? I’m not saying hitting on her - I agree you’ve got to be a backwards individual to try to pick up a girl during a Netrunner tournament. But table talk is, IMO, a healthy part of this hobby. How am I supposed to know that you are offended by such questions as “how large is your gaming group?” “how did you get into Netrunner?” “how often do you guys game?”
In short, the Code of Conduct is a step in the right direction, but this idea that people have an absolute right to be offended by anything and can simply report otherwise innocuous conduct without explanation is dangerous.
3 Likes
People keep suggesting something to this effect, but what, in terms of real harms, do you see as the danger here? Do you honestly anticipate a wave of people ‘abusing’ the CoC to nefarious ends?
(And yes, FWIW, people do have an ‘absolute right to be offended by anything.’ This is a truism regardless of any policy, code, or law. Your majoritarian standards of ‘reasonableness’ do not get to police the emotional states of other human beings.)
7 Likes
I’m really confused by the many comments like this that say you’d have to be ‘backwards’ or uncouth to try and ‘pick up’ a woman at a tournament (or a man?). The whole point of this entire thread is making sure people don’t feel uncomfortable, or if they do, to empower them to communicate this and have it stop. I think that sexual attraction can be negotiated in what is a social space. Maybe the negative feelings towards it are bundled up in the misogynistic culture of the ‘pick up’, a term that implicitly objectifies people.
Tldr, I’m not sure what’s wrong with two consenting adults exchanging numbers, even if (woe betide us!) they are attracted to each other.
5 Likes
Fundamentally, you have a “right to be offended,” just as you have a “right to believe in XYZ God/religion.” It’s your own choice. But at what point does a subjective right to be offended by something trump the individual’s right to live their own life? You’re picking and choosing who and what is more important, when by all accounts, we should all be treated equally.
If I show up with my Jackson Howard / Last Supper collage playmat, and you take offense because you’re a super-devout Christian, this is somehow reasonable? My freedom of expression to use the playmat that I want is somehow less valued than the hyper-sensitivity of the irrational?
3 Likes
It used to be that if you go into public space you knowingly subject yourself to situations that might make you uncomfortable, and that’s the risk you take and that was that.
This is a bit of a cold mentality, but as a community we work to address this and be more inviting by pressuring ourselves to not simply leave it at that, in an effort to increase turnout and create a more positive environment. The effort here is to move away from the above and work towards a different environment.
6 Likes
No one is suggesting that the CoC is anything other than a positive for the community. I’m glad that as someone who lives in NYC, I’ve personally never seen or heard of any of the issues mentioned by others who may live in less tolerant parts of the country while playing Netrunner. I just find the standard of offensive conduct being “anything I find offensive” to be no standard at all, and subject to abuse.
3 Likes
I actually agree and I typically find that people are far more quick to play the “I’m offended card” in life than I think is necessary, but that view doesn’t matter here 1.) because the community has agreed that it should be done this way, and this is bigger than my beliefs, and 2.) this is an arena that I really like, and would love to see grow, and I have to presume the greater population knows better than me, and finally, and most important and logically 3.) the cost is very low. There is virtually no chance a person will abuse this set of rules for an edge of any kind.
3 Likes
The day I have to pack up a playmat due to a lack of my opponent’s sense of humor will be a sad day for humanity.
What about a “lighten up?” caveat? 
1 Like
Sorry, that day is here, and notably in this hobby. Again, I feel where you’re coming from because I am inclined to agree, however the majority don’t, and the only way to have perspective from without is to see what the masses say, as my experience is only seen through my eyes and my experiences.
I don’t let other people offend me no matter what, I have a stand up sense of humor that runs through everything, often people think I don’t take anything seriously (I do), and this tempers my thinking and my expectations of others, and I realize that. I would guess I’m a less boisterous version of the guy from OP’s story, but I have more social skills to know when to temper my behavior. I can’t expect others to treat things the way I do, and if my desire to have a large game full of skilled or for fun players is greater than my desire to be that edgy guy with the the mildly offensive playmat, I have to make the choice that makes sense, and that is to cater to the more sensitive people in the community.
3 Likes
Abusing the CoC is absolutely not the issue (well not as I see it anyway).
If the aim is to make people feel welcome and able to participate in our futuristic card game, then telling one person that: “If you feel subjectively uncomfortable about anyone, we’ll get onto them and probably kick them out if it makes you feel better” would absolutely help to make that person feel they could participate safely.
However, if you set up a situation where you are telling everyone that: “We have a system where if anyone else present takes a subjective dislike to you, expect to be called out on it, probably excluded and maybe even morally castigated for being subjectively dislikable” then that seems to me the very antithesis of welcoming! It sounds a horribly cliquey and intolerant atmosphere to me.
Formulating a “don’t-be-an-arsehole” policy should be very simple, but it absolutely requires people to communicate their unease before expecting people to refrain from the upsetting behaviour. I appreciate that if people have particular things which stress them out (and that you might not expect the average man in the street to reasonably expect to be upsetting), then it might get frustrating pointing those things out repetetively every time it comes up, but the answer to that can never be to heap moral opprobrium on everyone that can’t read your mind!
Seriously, I don’t think there’s that much of a disagreement. If you changed:
to something like:
“While we recognize that what constitutes offensive speech or microaggressions may be subjective and/or unintentional, any infraction that might reasonably be expected to cause another player to feel their safety was in any way compromised will be met with immediate ejection. Where any player is made to feel uneasy by any behaviour, they are encouraged to ask a TO to make that player aware of the particular behaviour that is upsetting (or may politely do so themselves if they wish). Unreceptive behaviour after being informed of someone else’s unease is unacceptable and will never be tolerated.”
then I would hope that everyone would be happy.
(Maybe it’s just me, but for what it’s worth I’d also change “Harassment includes, but is not limited to” to something along the lines of “People are often made to feel unwelcome by behaviour such as” to emphasise that including other people and looking out for their worries is the over-arching goal rather than drawing distinct boundaries, however fuzzy, to a term of “legalese”. You shouldn’t even need to define harassment, if you say you’re uncomfortable, people should respect that! All you need to do is say so/get the TO to say so!)
4 Likes
The moment “living your own life” enters into exchange with other human beings. For example, the moment you want to participate in a community of Netrunner players.
This is, indeed, what standards and policies do: they “pick and choose” what kinds of behaviors are acceptable in a given space and what kinds are not. Your notion in the comments above that a “sense of humor” should trump “hyper-sensitivity” would also be picking and choosing who and what is welcome in that space. You likely don’t recognize this because when policies benefit us, we tend to see them as “objective” or “reasonable.”
4 Likes
I’m not saying one trumps the other. What I’m saying is it’s bogus if someone can secretly alert a TO about some conduct they deemed offensive.
I’m sorry, but asking someone “how did you get into Netrunner?” is not offensive, and should not warrant a warning. Under the system implemented, it does, if the recipient of the question “felt offended.”
At what point does the punishment stop fitting the crime?
3 Likes
Larro, I think you’re half right.
- It is very possible that asking someone how the got into Netrunner could be offensive, and you do need to accept that. Everyone’s different: I would hazard that anyone that’s not weird in some way is probably lying!
- However, I think you’re entirely correct that it should never warrant any kind of warning (Since it wouldn’t be something that a reasonable person would necessarily expect to be offensive. Quite the contrary, a reasonable person would probably expect it to be a friendly and welcoming act, exactly what we’re trying to promote!).
It seems to me that what such a situation warrants is the offended person making clear their upset (either through the TO or in person). I would hope that you would agree that not responding positively to such a communication should be an issue for taking action.
3 Likes
So you are, indeed, preemptively worried about a non-existent rash of abuses of the CoC. So much for “reasonableness” and “objectivity.” Has anyone proposed warning someone for asking how people got into Netrunner?
Look, there are already plenty of rules out there ripe for abuse if taken at face-value by hyperparanoid readers – see the recently active thread about scouting opponents’ decks at tournaments for an example. The proposed CoC is no different than any other policy, in that it will ultimately depend on the intervention of human reason (by aggrieved parties in deciding what to report, by TOs in deciding how to respond, etc.) to implement. All complaints of pedants to the contrary, Street Peddler still successfully installs stuff because we all know that’s how it works: likewise, all irrational fears about fascistic political correctness aside, no one is going to throw you out of a tournament for asking how someone started playing the game.
If someone is, indeed, offended by a playmat containing religious iconography, what is the – and this is the important part! – real harm in switching playmats for the day?
There is no crime, nor punishment, nor question of ‘freedom of expression’ here. Full stop. This is not about the law; this is about how a group of people freely entering into association with one another to play a card game want to establish guidelines for appropriate behavior within that specific community.
7 Likes
Of course. This is exactly what I’m suggesting - that the offended party first communicate it to the offender, instead of having a situation where they go right to the TO, who must enforce the black letter law and give a warning.